To Yoko Ono: "If you support this idea but fail in the attempt I will probably die"

To Yoko Ono: "If you don't support this idea I will probably die because I'm too lazy to find someone else interested in helping the world"

If someone was unsuccessful in supporting this idea I would view it as a personal failure for not being able to determine their ability more accurately

I concluded my efforts in 2011 only after identifying mistakes by everyone I thought might be willing to support this idea or deciding that they would probably fail

I am, unfortunately, still able to imagine a scenario where someone with a reputation tries to get people to use this idea and they are unsuccessful.

I look at things like interest rates this way. They are known to influence investment and spending, and so can change the level of employment. But this is limited.

In contrast, through working less we can create as many jobs as necessary.

To anyone wondering why influential people haven't supported this idea, it is for the same reason that you have not.

The reason that problems exist in the world is that no one thought of this idea before. Since the prevention of war is an essential component, you could also say that no one understood the competitive drive that causes people from other cultures to accept war. It does not help a society to be peaceful if it is overrun by its neighbors, and historically a lot of war was about the loot.

As I said I have tried to avoid conveying that I think that supporting this idea is the 'ethical' thing to do, but I don't accept this as a reason for people not to support it. I would benefit from it just like anyone else from the lower risk of being killed or other similar things for myself and people I know, and as I have mentioned it would also lead to higher quality in games like World of Warcraft.

If anyone thinks that influential people should support this idea, they should say so. The feedback from the Occupy Wall Street forums was that we should distrust authority.

People who have not supported this idea are assumed to view the following issues as not important enough to act on:

A small chance they, or people they know, will be killed

Mass shootings like the ones at Aurora and Sandy Hook

Unemployment and associated problems, including wasteful government spending

War and its effects like someone you know joining the military and being killed

Unexpected events in general that cause harm and could have been avoided if people were smarter

Occupations that appear to be unethical having a 'wage premium', including the sex industry and finance

Nonviolent crime, like computer viruses and scams

Unwanted climate change like global warming

Smart people being unhappy because they feel more responsible for problems

The fact that the human race is getting stupider as time goes on due to genetic selection

Biased feedback for games like WoW or Aion that lead to people wasting time on things that do not have the intended result

Starvation in Africa

Friends or relatives committing suicide because of relationship problems or depression

High cost of college in the US and the inaccuracy of attendance at an 'elite' institution as a signal of ability despite that many people perceive it to be accurate

'Nice' people going to prison or being accused of crimes, such as Aaron Swartz who committed suicide

Economic sanctions against nations such as North Korea that are seen as unethical

Intellectual property law that causes obvious inefficiencies, such as the patenting of round corners on electronic devices

Government corruption in places like China

Female persons, or even male persons, not being able to attain important positions in society because of a lack of time

It seems like the definitive statement on the competence of influential people is whether they expected something like Sandy Hook or Aurora could happen. If they did not consider it at all, they are stupid.

In that case, I would expect James Holmes to announce his motivations so that people can agree that the problems of the world are not due to poor intentions. There are enough conspiracy theories floating around (on Youtube, a 94 minute video has 500k views) without expecting people to evaluate another; besides, blogs are not considered "reliable sources".

I dedicate this post to Monk of Firetree US server in the World of Warcraft, who defended me from respawns after I stopped talking after losing a neck item with intellect and spirit to, I think, a rogue, in March 2005. His email address went inactive sometime between an email I sent on his birthday on October 5 and another email I sent on 10 Nov.

And it isn't clear what you mean by 'correct itself'. Populations in developing countries are expected to level off as they progress economically, which this idea would make happen more quickly, but I don't foresee an end to the negative correlation between intelligence and babies unless this idea is used.

It's not like depression is a new thing. Just look at Shakespeare or other ancient writers such as Machiavelli ("Anyone who studies present and ancient affairs will easily see how in all cities and all peoples there still exist, and have always existed, the same desires and passions") or the 11th-century work "The Tale of Genji".

People are less likely to "believe" in global warming if unemployment is high; similarly, the President has also said that he views unemployment as more important that climate change. So a reasonable explanation is that these smart people who deny global warming are just not smart enough to have fixed unemployment already.

That would probably either mean 1. huge subsidies for renewable energy... Germany has tried this with solar power and it was moderately successful (enough that they scaled back the subsidies) or 2. huge tax increases on fossil fuels.

The first has the risk of Solyndra-type abuses... the second would be a lot easier to pass if poor people had more money to be able to afford those taxes. Which goes right back to unemployment.

I want in on that - but I will only use rubber bullets - makes a longer lasting impression ( rock salt ? ) - I think - don't forget to put Harry Ried on the list - he ain't no angel either. Entitled wealthy assholes. Hey check this out :

Yep - loopholes - or is that - SCREW HOLES???? Businesses need to pay taxes into the system - the support system - WTF are they doing collecting subsidies when they are making major profits without a need for subsidies?

The public should be set to go ( be good ) under any circumstance - 1st - as that is where the majority of funds come from in the 1st place.

The astronomical profits being made are a total fiction and a theft from the public.